JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS (Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny) debate -
Thursday, 17 Jun 2004

Scrutiny of EU Proposals.

Chairman

We will now turn to the first set of proposals for consideration, documents Nos. 1.1 to 1.21, which, it is proposed, do not warrant further scrutiny. Document No. 1.1 is COM (2004) 50, a proposed regulation establishing a European agency for safety and health at work. Members will have seen that the Department's note sets out that the implications of the proposed amendment would be minimal for Ireland. It is proposed that it does not warrant further scrutiny but that it should be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business for information in regard to the increased focus of the agency on SMEs. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Document No. 1.2 is COM (2004) 151, a proposed directive regarding fruit jams, jellies, marmalades and sweetened chestnut purée intended for human consumption. The proposal, I understand, follows an incident in Austria and provides for an amendment to Directive 2001/113/EC regarding, inter alia, jams, jellies and marmalades. Austria sought an amendment to that directive to take account of the tradition in Austria of using the term “marmalade” in the German language to describe jam. Directive 2001/113/EC, as currently constituted, describes marmalade as a mixture of water, sugars, citrus fruit and peel. This proposal seeks to amend the directive to insert a footnote to amend the German language version of the measure to take account of the local tradition in Germany and Austria of using the term “marmalade” to describe jam. It is proposed that this does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Senator Coghlan

We have no problem with the marmalade in this country.

Chairman

Document No. 1.3, COM (2004) 162, is a proposed directive on the type approval of motor vehicles with regard to re-usability, recyclability and recoverability. This proposal seeks to put in place a system for the type approval of motor vehicles in order to facilitate the re-usability, recyclability and recoverability of the component parts of motor vehicles, i.e. passenger cars and light trucks. This is with a view to reducing waste and improving the environmental performance at all stages of the life-cycle of the product. The proposed measure would apply to vehicles in production 36 months after the introduction of the measure. The preliminary assessment of the compatibility of the design would be undertaken by national authorities in the member states where production of the motor vehicles takes place.

The Commission proposal outlines estimated costs of the measure at between €11 and €55 per vehicle. This, it states, is based on figures provided by the European Automobile Manufacturers Association. The memorandum goes on to suggest that there would be environmental benefits but does not outline these. It does, however, highlight that between 9 and 10 million vehicles reach the end of their life-cycle every year, producing between 8 and 9 million tonnes of waste. Certain components would not be deemed reusable by the proposed measure. These would include airbags and catalytic converters.

The Department makes clear in the note that it supports the proposal and has subsequently indicated that it does not dispute the Commission's analysis of the relative costs and benefits of the proposal.

It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny but that it be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Transport for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Document No. 1.4 is COM (2004) 246, a proposed directive on the common system of value-added tax to simplify and clarify EU VAT law. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Document No. 1.5, COM (2004) 285, is a proposed regulation adopting autonomous and transitional measures concerning the importation of certain processed agricultural products originating in Bulgaria and the exportation of certain processed agricultural products to Bulgaria. The departmental note states that trade in agricultural products between Ireland and Bulgaria is of no significance and is unlikely to increase as a result of the tariff concession proposed. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny but that it be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Document No. 1.6, COM (2004) 299, is a proposed Council decision on an agreement between the Government of China and the European Community on co-operation and mutual administrative assistance in customs matters. Through this proposed Council decision, the Commission is seeking authorisation from the Council to conclude an agreement on customs matters between the EU and the People's Republic of China. As with a similar proposal in relation to India dealt with at the meeting on 11 March 2004, the Department's information note indicates that the proposed agreement is standard in nature. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Document No. 1.7, COM (2004) 313, is a proposal for a regulation on the access to community external assistance. This proposal, which the Department indicates would have no implications for Ireland, seeks to define in a single measure the basic acts governing external assistance that fall under the EU budget. I understand that the proposed measure is based on the principle that the tying of aid to the purchase of goods and services in the donor country reduces the effectiveness of that aid. It therefore sets out guidelines for eligibility for access to EU assistance by outlining the rules of eligibility for participation in the award of procurement or grant contracts financed under an EU instrument.

The proposal also notes that procurement is, in principle, open in the Single Market but also states that, on the basis of reciprocity, it will be open to Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Switzerland and USA. Similar levels of openness are set out for developing countries and, in the context of co-operation with international organisations, third countries involved in EU development projects. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Document No. 1.8, COM (2004) 318, is a proposal for a directive as regards the application of certain provisions to Estonia. This proposal seeks approval for a temporary derogation until 31 December 2012 with regard to Estonia. The Department's note outlines that the approval of the measure would have no implications for Ireland. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Document No. 1.9, COM (2004) 329, is a proposal for a Council decision adapting Council decision 2004/246/EC by reason of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia. This is a technical proposal and it is proposed that it does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Document No. 1.10, COM (2004) 330, is a proposal for a Council decision outlining the general approach for the reallocation of resources on Community support for pre-accession measures for agricultural and rural development in the applicant countries of central and eastern Europe in the pre-accession period. This proposal seeks to give legal effect to a decision at the European Council in December 2002 in relation to special pre-accession agricultural assistance to Romania and Bulgaria. It is proposed that it does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Document No. 1.11, COM (2004) 365, is a proposed directive on markets in financial instruments. This proposal, which the Department outlines in its note would have no implications for Ireland, is an amended text of a proposal first seen by the sub-committee in 2002 and referred to the finance committee for further scrutiny. It is proposed that this does not warrant further scrutiny but that the proposal be forwarded to the finance committee for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Document No. 1.12, COM (2004) 386, is a proposal for a Council decision on the request by Burkina Faso to accede to the protocol on ACP sugar. In this case, the Commission memorandum and the Department's note underline that Burkina Faso is not a net exporter of sugar and therefore does not qualify for participation. This proposal seeks not to accept Burkina Faso's application to participate. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 1.13, COM (2004) 309, is a proposed regulation regarding the date of application of certain provisions to Slovenia. The Department's note highlights that the adoption of the proposal would have no implications for Ireland. It is proposed to note it. Is that agreed? Agreed

No. 1.14, COM (2004) 349, is a proposed regulation granting derogations to the new member states from certain provisions relating to reference levels of fishing fleets. This proposal seeks to grant derogations from the articles referring to these reference periods for the new members. The Department's note suggests that the proposal is of minor significance and that there would be no implications for Ireland. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed

I propose to take Nos. 1.15 to 1.18, inclusive, together as they are very similar technical proposals to take account of the accession of the ten new member states. They relate to existing agreements with FYROM, Armenia and Croatia. No. 1.15, COM (2004) 354, is a proposal for a Council and a Commission decision on the conclusion of the Protocol to the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their member states, of the one part, and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the new member states. This is purely technical.

The same is the case with No. 1.16, COM (2004) 355. This is a proposal for approval, signature, and provisional application of a technical amendment to the Stabilisation and Association Agreement.

No. 1.17, COM (2004) 358, is a purely technical amendment relating to Armenia for the same reason and No. 1.18, COM (2004) 370, is a similar technical amendment which relates to Croatia. It is proposed that Nos. 1.15 to 1.18, inclusive, do not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed?

No. 1.19, COM (2004) 381, is a proposed decision outlining the general approach for the re-allocation of resources establishing an instrument for structural policies for pre-accession. The Department's note confirms that the adoption of the measure would have no implications for Ireland. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 1.20, COM (2004) 404, is a proposed decision on a Community position in the Association Council on the implementation of Article 75 of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their member states, of the one part, and the Arab Republic of Egypt, of the other part. This proposal seeks approval for the draft rules of procedure for the Council. These are, I understand, standard in nature and indicate, inter alia, that the Embassy of the Arab Republic of Egypt in Brussels and the Council Secretariat will act jointly as the secretariat of the Association Council. It is proposed that the proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 1.21, COM (2004) 287, is a Council Decision on the application of certain guidelines in the field of officially supported export credits. This proposed measure is a redrafted and consolidated text of the DECD guidelines. The Department's note classifies the nature of the proposal as "purely technical" and holding no implications for Ireland. It is proposed to note it. Is that agreed? Agreed.

To sum up, it was proposed that Nos. 1.1 to 1.21, inclusive, do not warrant further scrutiny and should be forwarded for information to sectoral committees as agreed.

The next proposals are the documents which it is proposed to refer to sectoral committees for further scrutiny, Nos. 2.1 to 2.6, inclusive. We received a note from the Department only last night on No. 2.1 and I will come to this in a moment.

No. 2.1, COM (2004) 808, is a proposal for a Council Regulation on the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, EMCDDA, is based in Lisbon and is responsible for the collection of comparable data related to drug misuse across the European Union. The Commission in its memorandum to the proposal states that it wishes to "boost the Centre's role" and task it with a greater role in examining new trends such as the combined use of lawful and unlawful substances. It seeks a greater strategic role for the board of the agency and other minor administrative changes.

The Department's note, however, highlights a number of areas of concern regarding the effective removal of the provisions for a representative of each member state on the advisory scientific committee of the agency and the removal of the provision for a representative of the European Parliament on the board of the agency.

The note received last night, which was addressed to the clerk of the sub-committee, stated the following. An information note on 2.1, COM (2004) 808, Council Regulation on the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, was prepared for the committee in March of this year but appears to have been mislaid in transmission. The delay in submitting this information note is regretted. The regulation itself is considered to have minor significance for Ireland and has been under discussion in the horizontal drugs working group of the Council under the Irish Presidency. It is hoped discussion will be finalised before the end of the Presidency. The aim of the draft regulation is to re-cast an existing regulation on the establishment of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction.

It is not clear from that whether this has already been agreed, but it is clear that it is intended to agree it before the end of the Irish Presidency. I propose that this be sent to the Joint Committee on Health and Children for further scrutiny with the caveat that we do not know at this stage whether it is very far advanced. I propose that we refer the proposal to that committee in any event. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 2.2, COM (2004) 823, is a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning short-term statistics. The Commission in the memorandum to this proposal argues that more detailed statistics are required by policy-makers at the level of the EU, for example, at the European Central Bank, in the context of monetary union. This proposal seeks to make provision for the supply of short-term statistics by the member states in the following areas: import prices; isolation of some statistics regarding the so-called eurozone; output prices for the services sector; and certain statistics on a monthly rather than on a quarterly basis.

The additional costs arising from the provision of these statistics will be partly met by support from the EU budget, although the CSO has confirmed that such assistance to the member states tends to cover only a small percentage of their additional costs. The CSO has also indicated that it is currently in the process of determining the likely impact of the proposal on its own operations and of the increased demands on the business community for statistical information.

This proposal alone would not appear to raise the prospect of a large increase in the burden on business. However, it is the latest of a number of proposals from the Commission considered by the sub-committee regarding widening the scope of, and increasing the frequency in, the provision of statistical information.

I understand that the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business will further scrutinise a proposal on the provision of information on vocational training by businesses, that is, COM (2004) 95, and that committee may wish to consider this proposal in that context. It is proposed that the proposal be referred to the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business for further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 2.3, COM (2004) 193, is a proposed Council decision concerning the placing on the market of a maize product — lea mays L. line NK603 — genetically modified for glyphosate tolerance. Applications for approval of placing on the market of genetically modified animal feed such as maize are governed by Directive 2001/18/EC. The genetically modified maize in this proposal is lea mays L. line NK603. It is modified for glyphosate tolerance, a weedkiller. This proposal does not seek approval for the cultivation or human consumption of the crop.

The application for approval came via the Spanish authorities, I understand, and has been supported by a number of national food agencies/national representatives on the regulatory committee. The Department has confirmed, however, that the representatives of Denmark, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg and Austria were against approving the placing on the market of the product concerned and that Germany abstained. The Department's note outlines that the final advice of the EPA was positive and the Department has forwarded a copy of this for the information of the sub-committee.

Proposals involving the placing on the market of genetically modified crops have been a matter of some public interest and debate. This proposal is also the first in recent times on animal feed, which raises additional questions concerning the labelling of products further down the food chain. It is proposed to refer the proposal to the Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government for scrutiny and to forward a copy of the proposal to the Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Senator Bradford

I note from the briefing document, under the heading "Implications for Ireland," that the proposal has no implications specifically related to Ireland. The proposed authorisation is on an EU-wide basis, and the briefing document is factually correct, but down the line this proposal will have very significant implications. We are obviously correct in referring it to the appropriate committees, but it will require very detailed consideration because a positive decision on this proposal will very much change the rules of the game in regard to genetic modification. It is something to which the committees will have to give very detailed consideration.

Chairman

The committees will want to look at this. We will refer it for detail examination.

No. 2.4, COM (2004) 328, is a proposal for a Council framework decision on certain procedural rights in criminal proceedings throughout the European Union. This proposal follows from a Commission Green Paper considered by the sub-committee in March 2003 and forwarded to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights for consideration.

Officials from the lead Department made a presentation to that committee on the paper. At that stage, I understand that the committee had no specific recommendations to make. The departmental note to this proposal also sets out that the Green Paper was discussed "with little enthusiasm" by the Council in late 2003.

The follow-on proposal from the Commission seeks the introduction of minimum harmonised standards in respect of five areas outlined in the Green Paper: the right to legal advice from a qualified lawyer as soon as possible; the right to interpretation and translation if the defendant cannot understand or speak the language used in the court system; the protection of certain potentially vulnerable groups due to age or physical, mental or emotional condition — it would be up to member states to be sufficiently attentive to the needs as they arose; communication with family or a contact person and access to consular type assistance, if abroad, from embassies or international organisations; and written notification of rights in the language of the defendant set out in a standard "letter of rights".

The Commission, in its memorandum to the proposal, states that member states already meet recognised standards of the European Court of Human Rights. It argues, however, that compliance with the ECHR is not universal and that applications to it are growing each year. It is therefore seeking and orchestrating agreement between the member states on a fair trial. It is in this context that the Commission suggests that a higher visibility of safeguards is required.

The Department, in section 14 of its note, raises a question as to whether the proposal falls within the competence of the EU and highlights significant resource implications for Ireland if the proposal is adopted in its present form. This is a proposal of some significance and one which the Department's note outlines has prompted that Minister to question the legal basis on which the Commission has presented the proposal. It is proposed to refer the proposal to the Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights for further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 2.5, COM (2004) 334, is a Green Paper on the approximation, mutual recognition and enforcement of criminal sanctions in the European Union. This Green Paper from the Commission is designed to encourage debate and a response by 31 July 2004 to the Commission on the question of the approximation of criminal sanctions. The paper acknowledges that the differences in penalties between member states arise for historical, cultural and legal reasons and are an expression of the way in which member states have faced and answered fundamental questions about criminal law.

The paper goes on to suggest, however, that the approximation of criminal penalties can satisfy several mutually complementary objectives. This change, according to the Commission, would be symbolic and help to give a shared sense of justice to the general public, would respond to the transnational nature of many crimes and would prevent criminals exploiting differences in the judicial systems of member states.

The paper also contains many references to current practice across the member states and concludes with 39 questions on the issues raised. This Green Paper touches on issues that are fundamental to the justice systems of the member states and their internal judicial coherence. It is recognised in the paper that the operation of these systems is at the very heart of the member states' sovereignty and would appear on first reading to suggest that proposals based around the direction of the thinking in the Green Paper would raise questions in relation to subsidiary.

There are many fundamental questions raised in this document which would require detailed scrutiny by the Oireachtas. It is proposed therefore to forward the Green Paper to the Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights for its consideration. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 2.6, SEC (2004) 456, is a preliminary draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2005. This proposal follows from the draft amending budget No.7 — the 2003 budget surplus — that was considered by the sub-committee at its previous meeting. The Department of Finance, following a request for further information on that proposal, forwarded an additional note on the background to the current position on Ireland's contribution to the budget in 2004.

This additional note has been circulated for the information of members. The Department has also outlined that the proposed budget is being currently examined to determine levels of receipts and the contribution from Ireland, but it has confirmed that the Commission's proposals certainly include the €15 million anticipated contribution to the International Fund for Ireland.

In this proposal the Commission is seeking approval for the 2005 budget of the EU. The proposal is of major significance for Ireland as it is important in the context of ensuring that there is the correct balance between Ireland's contribution and receipts from the process and that the appropriate policy areas receive adequate resources. The departmental note suggests that a clearer outline of the final figures for the budget is unlikely before November 2004.

The proposed budget for 2004 was scrutinised by the Joint Committee on European Affairs. It is proposed that the proposal be referred to the Joint Committee on European Affairs for further scrutiny. That committee may also wish to consider inviting officials from the Departments dealing with the main policy areas encompassed by the budget, such as the Department of Agriculture and Food, to allow for the fullest debate on this important issue. Is that agreed? Agreed.

We move now to proposals which were adopted prior to scrutiny, of which there are quite a few. A letter has been circulated to members which I propose should be circulated to co-ordinators regarding these late proposals which have been adopted prior to scrutiny. I take it members will have no difficulty with that letter when they have had an opportunity to read it.

No. 3.1, COM (2004) 40, is a directive on measuring instruments. This is a technical measure which was approved on 31 March and entered into force on 30 April 2004. It aims to achieve the full harmonisation and updating of the EU's regulation of measuring instruments. It is proposed that this does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 3.2, COM (2004) 114, is a proposal for a directive as regards traditional herbal medicinal products and relating to medicinal products for human use. This measure, adopted by the Council on 11 March 2004, was first considered by the sub-committee at its meeting on 16 October 2003, when it determined to forward the proposal to the Joint Committee on Health and Children for further scrutiny. The proposal was part of a package of proposals related to the regulation of medicinal products. The proposals had gone through a number of amendments and would establish a specialised committee to deal with herbal medicines and develop the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products. The proposals also set out rules for the sharing of information and marketing of such products. They aim to complete the single market in pharmaceutical products through greater mutual recognition of national measures and to guarantee a higher level of consumer protection through greater surveillance of this market across Europe.

This measure contains some textual amendments proposed by the European Parliament and, inter alia, confirms that foodstuffs will continue to be governed by legislation on foodstuffs. It is proposed to note the measure and to forward a copy of the adopted measure to the Joint Committee on Health and Children for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 3.3, COM (2004) 209, is a proposal for a Council decision concerning the accession of the European Community to the Protocol of Amendment to the International Convention on the Simplification and Harmonisation of Customs Procedures — Kyoto Convention. The Department's note confirmed that Ireland has "completed its national accession procedure". This measure, adopted on 26 April, provides for the depositing of the EC's instrument of accession to the Kyoto Convention. It is proposed to note the measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 3.4 is COM (2004) 216. In October 2003 the sub-committee considered an earlier text of this measure when it determined that it did not warrant further scrutiny but that it be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business for information. At that time it had been indicated that the proposal would be one of the priorities of the Irish Presidency. The measure sets formal requirements for the provision of statistical data relating to the information society. It follows from the European Council in Lisbon in March 2000 — the Lisbon strategy. It is proposed to note the measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 3.5, COM (2004) 235, is a proposal for a regulation concerning protection against subsidisation and unfair pricing practices causing injury to Community air carriers in the supply of airline services from countries not members of the European Union. This measure is an amended text of a proposal considered by the sub-committee in June 2003 and referred to Joint Committee on Transport for further scrutiny. That committee determined that it had "no formal recommendations to make" on the proposal. The Department's note outlines that this amendment is "unlikely to have any significant implications for Ireland". It is proposed to note the adopted measure and to forward a copy to the Joint Committee on Transport, which dealt with this matter in October 2003. Is that agreed?

Senator Bradford

As we are a little late in looking at the proposal, there is not much we can do. I do not have a good understanding of what the proposal is all about. In one sense it appears to fly slightly in the face of normal competition policy because it is about protection against subsidisation and unfair pricing practices and it would appear to do nothing for the overall policy of trying to drive down airline pricing. Is it about trying to protect Community air carriers? The language used looks a little unusual.

Chairman

It aims to ensure that there are not unfair practices against European airlines, for example by American airlines. There have been some amendments to it since we looked at it originally. We did refer the original measure for examination.

We must send a much stiffer letter than the one the clerk will be sending, if the committee agrees. The next time we must start calling in Secretaries General and telling them that measures are to be notified to the committee. That is the law and it is not an option. It is only on rare occasions that they are not to be notified. The committee must take a much more serious view of this if it continues. This early warning letter will now be sent to co-ordinators. If the situation does not improve subsequently, we will start calling in Secretaries General.

Senator Bradford

Possibly a new chairman will be more frightening to the Departments.

Chairman

I do not know about that. I am too gentle; that is the problem. Is the proposal agreed? Agreed.

No. 3.6, COM (2004) 241, is a proposal for a Council decision on the position to be adopted by the Community within the ACP-EC Council of Ministers regarding a decision on the use of the reserve of the long-term development envelope as well as resources from the investment facility of the ninth European Development Fund for the establishment of an ACP-EU water facility. The Department has confirmed that the measure as outlined was agreed at the EU/ACP ministerial meeting on 6 and 7 May. It is proposed to note the measure and to ask the Department to forward the relevant section of the European Development Fund review to the sub-committee for its information in advance of any proposal in March 2005 on additional funding for this project. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 3.7, COM (2004) 255, is a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on insurance requirements for air carriers and aircraft operators. This is a measure to take account of an amendment to a proposal on insurance requirements for air carriers and aircraft operators that was considered at various stages by the sub-committee during its evolution through the European legislative process. The Joint Committee on European Affairs also considered an earlier text of this measure in April 2003, when officials from the Department of Transport came to give a presentation on the proposal.

The measure outlines insurance requirements and conditions and this adopted amendment provides that microlight aircraft and gliders used in sports or leisure activities are excluded from the insurance requirements of the measure in relation to risks of war and terrorism. It is proposed to note the measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 3.8, COM (2004) 265, is a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the negotiation and implementation of air service agreements between member states and third countries. This measure takes account of minor textual amendments, in particular in the German text. It is proposed to note the measure. Is that agreed? Agreed

No. 3.9, COM (2004) 286, is a proposal for a Council decision on the signing of the Co-operation Agreement on a Civil Global Navigation Satellite System, GNSS, between the European Community and its member states, and the state of Israel. The Transport Council adopted this proposal for a co-operation agreement with Israel on the EU's satellite navigation service on 11 June 2004 and it is anticipated that the agreement will be signed in July in Brussels. It follows similar agreements with the People's Republic of China on co-operation with the EU's GALILEO navigation system.

The Council in January 2004 authorised the Commission to enter negotiations with the state of Israel with a view to establishing a co-operation agreement. The agreement aims to "encourage, facilitate and enhance co-operation between the parties" on related matters. Among other things, the agreement will promote joint research activities in the field of navigation systems and related industrial co-operation.

The Department has been asked for a note on the circumstances surrounding its presentation of the proposal just prior to its adoption. This is a measure that is really for noting at this stage because it has been decided upon, but it is to be ratified in July. This is a matter which should be referred to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs for its information. Agreements of this kind should not go ahead without parliamentary scrutiny and there are foreign policy issues involved in this. I propose referring this to the Joint Committee on Transport and to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs for their information. They can do whatever they wish at that stage. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 3.10, COM (2004), 321 is an amended proposal for a directive on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents — electromagnetic fields.

The Framework Directive 89/391/EEC aims to protect workers against risks to their health and safety arising from exposure to physical agents such as noise and vibration. Specific directives have been adopted on these two aspects of the framework directive and this proposal related to risks associated with electromagnetic fields. The measure places obligations on employers to assess risk, reduce exposure, undertake health surveillance and provide information and training to workers.

This proposal concerns European Parliament amendments to the earlier proposed measure, which the Commission has accepted. These include provision for consultation with workers and that "Member States shall provide for adequate sanctions" in relation to infringement of related national legislation. It is proposed to note this measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 3.11, COM (2004) 357, a proposal for a Council decision on the signing of a protocol to the partnership and co-operation agreement between the European Communities and their member states, of the one part, and the Republic of Armenia, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the ten new member states. This is purely technical in nature and it is proposed to note the measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 3.12, COM (2004) 378, is a proposal for a Council decision fixing the financial contributions to be paid by the member states contributing to the European Development Fund — second instalment of 2004. This measure, which was adopted by the Council on 8 June, sets the contributions for the member states in regard to the European Development Fund. This tranche of contributions amounts to €1.1 billion, and Ireland's share of this is €6.820 million. The Commission's memorandum to the measure notes that the levels of contributions were indicated to the Council in November 2003. It is proposed to note the measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

We now turn to CFSP measures, Nos. 4.1 to 4.2, which the Chair has been notified of in advance under the confidential scrutiny procedure agreed with the Department of Foreign Affairs and the committee. No. 4.1, CFSP (2004) 487, is a Council common position concerning further restrictive measures in relation to Liberia. This common position is further to UN Security Council Resolution 1532 (2004) and imposes a freeze on funds, other financial assets and economic resources owned or controlled by the ex-president of Liberia, Mr. Charles Taylor, and immediate members of his family. In common with similar measures, provision is made in the common position for necessary expenses. It is proposed to note the measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 4.2, CFSP (2004) 500, is a Council common position on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism and repeal common position 2003/309/CFSP. This common position follows the regular review of the EU measure, 2001/931/CFSP, implementing UN Security Council Resolution 1373 of 28 September 2001. The common position updates the list of names annexed to the original anti-terrorist measure. The sub-committee previously considered the amended list 2003/906/CFSP at its meeting on 27 May 2004 and noted that amendment to the original measure.

With regard to the persons, groups, and entities listed, the member states afford each other the widest possible assistance in preventing and combating terrorist acts. This common position adds a number of entities that have been linked with terrorist attacks in Italy such as the Artisans' Co-operative Fire and Red Brigades for the Construction of the Fighting Communist Party. It is proposed to note the measure. Is that agreed? Agreed.

We now deal with measures to be deferred to the next meeting. No. 5.1, COM (2004) 57, is a Council regulation on the creation of a European foundation for the improvement of living and working conditions. This proposal is essentially technical, but it is proposed to defer consideration until the Department has provided additional information on the issues outlined. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 5.2, COM (2004) 147, is an amended proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on minimum safety requirements for tunnels in the trans-European road network. It is proposed to defer consideration until the additional note on the issue raised is provided by the Department. Officials from the committee have raised questions on this. When we get replies to those it is proposed to put the matter back on the agenda for consideration. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 5.3, COM (2004) 320, is a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of toluene and trichlorobenzene — 28th amendment of Council Directive 76/769/EEC. It is proposed formally to request the information required and to defer consideration of the proposal until the additional information is available. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I propose to defer consideration of the minutes of the previous meeting to the next meeting of the sub-committee. Is that agreed? Agreed. I propose to defer consideration of the draft reports of previous meetings to the next meeting of the sub-committee. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Correspondence has been received from the Irish Medical Organisation regarding the working time directive. The Department of Enterprise Trade and Employment has provided a background note on the directive and I propose to forward the correspondence and the note to the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business and the Joint Committee on Health and Children for their attention. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Correspondence has been received from the Department of Finance regarding proposals concerning the salaries of officials of the European Communities. The Department has confirmed that departmental procedures have been supplemented to address the issue. I propose to note this correspondence. Is that agreed? Agreed.

An explanatory memorandum has been received on COM (2004) 224, a proposal on fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks which was dealt with at the last meeting of the sub-committee. Members will recall that it was agreed to ask the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources for a note to explain why this proposal was adopted prior to scrutiny. I propose to note the Department's reply on the matter. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Additional briefing concerning COM (2004) 10 on genetically modified sweetcorn was received from the Department of Health and Children. I propose to note this additional briefing and I note that this will be relevant in our consideration of any further proposals in this area. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next item is a list of explanatory memos received to be noted. I propose to note the explanatory memos received from Departments concerning proposals adopted prior to scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Finally, under the legislation on scrutiny we must finalise a report to both Houses of the Oireachtas on the workings of scrutiny up to 31 December 2003. We should have a draft of that report at the next meeting so that we can offer our thoughts on what did and did not work well and refer it for discussion to both Houses of the Oireachtas.

I propose that the next meeting of the sub-committee should be 1 July 2004. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Senator Bradford

On behalf of the members of the committee I congratulate you, Chairman, and Deputy Harkin, on your election to very high office. It is a very strong hit rate for this committee to send two members to the European Parliament and I sincerely congratulate both of you on your success.

Deputy Grealish

I concur with that.

Chairman

I thank you both for those kind comments.

Deputy Harkin

Thank you.

The sub-committee adjourned at 10.18 p.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 1 July 2004.